HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/20/2004Karen
Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Phone: (W) 416-7435
Vice Chair: Judy Meyer Phone: (W) 490-2172
Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
Roll Call: Meyer, Schmidt, Craig, Lingle, Gavaldon and Torgerson. Member
Carpenter was absent.
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Olt, Barkeen, Wamhoff, Sears, Bracke
Moore, Stokes and Deines.
Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion
Agendas:
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes of the February 19 and April 15 (Continued), 2004
Planning and Zoning Board Hearings.
2. Resolution PZ04-12 — Easement Vacation.
3. Resolution PZ04-14 — Easement Dedication.
4. #12-97E Harmony Technology Park, 2nd Overall Development Plan.
5. #6-04 Raising Cane's — Project Development Plan.
6. #13-82CS Oakridge Business Park, Homewood Suites, Modification of
Standard.
7. Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan.
Discussion Agenda:
8. #16-01A Ridgeview Classical School Phase IV Addition — Site Plan
Advisory Review.
9. #35-96C Drake Crossing Shopping Center, Fort Collins Carwash —
Wireless Telecommunications Facility.
10. Recommendation to City Council for the Spring 2004 Biannual
Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code.
11. #13-82CT Oakridge Business Park, Continuing Care Senior Campus,
Modification of Standard. (Continued)
12. Recommendation to City Council for the Spring Green Out -Of -
City Utility Request. (Continued)
Member Craig pulled items 4 and 6 for discussion. Member Gavaldon pulled item 7.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 2
Chairperson Torgerson declared a conflict of interest on Item 2.
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Consent Agenda items consisting of
Items 1 (February 19th only), 3 and 5. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The
motion was approved 6-0.
Chairperson Torgerson turned the meeting over to the Vice Chair.
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent item 2. Member Schmidt
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0 with Chairperson Torgerson
abstaining due to a conflict of interest.
Project: Harmony Technology Park Overall Development
Plan, Second Amendment, # 12-97E
Project Description: Request by one of the Owners of the Harmony
Technology Park ODP to amend the existing Plan by
adding three new acres. The proposed addition
includes the existing home sites addressed as 4800,
4804 and 4808 Cambridge Avenue. The addition of
three acres will increase the total acreage of the ODP
from 267.19 acres to 270.19 acres. The amendment
also includes consolidating Tracts G, H and I into a
single Tract G, and slightly increasing the amount of
land area for secondary uses from 7.5 to 8.25. The
site is generally located south of Harmony Road and
east of Cambridge Avenue. The zoning is HC,
Harmony Corridor.
Hearing Testimonv, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Member Craig pulled this item for discussion. Member Craig referred to a letter that
was received and was asking if the new "bubble" for this ODP would be residential,
commercial, etc?
Ted Shepard, Senior Planner replied that the new "bubble" would be a mix of primary
and secondary uses. The question being asked was what really happens up along the
subdivision along Ziegler Road. This subdivision abuts part of Harmony Tech Park that
is the Hewlett Packard Technology Park, which is 60 acres and includes Celestica and
will be industrial and office. There will not be any retail, commercial or residential along
Ziegler road, which would impact that subdivision.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 3
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Item 4, Harmony Technology Park
Overall Development Plan, Second Amendment, #12-97E.
Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
Project: Oakridge Business Park, Homewood Suites,
Modification of Standards.
Project Description: Request for a modification of standard for Section
3.5.3(B) Relationship of Buildings to Streets,
Walkways and Parking of the Land Use Code, more
specifically Subsection 3.5.3(B)(2) Orientation to Build
to Lines for Streetfront Buildings. The property is
located in the Oakridge Business Park and is on the
south side of Oakridge Drive between Wheaton Drive
and McMurry Avenue. It is in the HC, Harmony
Corridor Zoning District.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Member Craig stated that she pulled this item because it came up at worksession if this
item meets the equal to or better than criteria. She asked for a staff for a presentation
and also asked the applicant to address the question.
Steve Olt, City Planner gave the staff presentation recommending approval. He stated
that Homewood Suites is a proposed hotel to be built on this lot in Oakridge Business
Park. Planner Olt stated that we do not at this time have a project development plan,
but we do have a sketch plan of the hotel, requesting that the building be setback — it
will be on the corner of Oakridge Drive and a new public street is proposed to the east
of the proposed hotel, therefore it would be on the corner of two streets. The Section of
the Code that is cited would require that the building be placed to the corner of the
street, both Oakridge Drive and the new public street. In both cases, the building
theoretically should be within 0-15 feet of the right of way of those two streets, based on
the language in the Land Use Code. At least 30% of either side of the building at that
corner should be within the 15 feet. They are requesting a modification to the standard
to allow the building to be setback from Oakridge Drive with an intervening parking lot
and drive -way between Oakridge Drive and the front fagade (front entryway) to the
building. It is an "L" shaped building as proposed and the east elevation would meet the
build to line standard along the proposed future street. As requested the north fagade
facing Oakridge Drive would not.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 4
The applicant is states that the granting of this modification would not be detrimental to
the public good and would not impair the intent and purposes of the Land Use Code.
The plan as submitted will advance or protect the public interest and purposes of the
standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than a plan that
would meet the requirements of the code.
Staff has determined, after evaluation, that the plan as submitted represents a building
layout and placement that would meet the applicable build to line standard for the east
elevation as it relates to the future public street, it would not satisfy the section of the
code that is cited to the north where it says "if a parcel, lot or tract has multiple streets,
then the building shall be built to at least two of them according to several sub -sections
of the code". In this case, the development is bounded by the two streets the building to
requirement would be met to the east but not to the north. Considering the
configuration of the development site and the surrounding land uses and established
street face for Oakridge Drive, the hotel as proposed would conform to the existing
established street face. In this particular case they are proposing and enhanced
pedestrian crosswalk from the main entry to the building to the public sidewalk along
Oakridge Drive that would be crossing a relatively low volume, low intensive parking lot
driveway for the proposed hotel. Staff has determined that the plan complies equally
well to a plan that would meet the requirement and therefore is recommending approval
of the modification.
Member Craig asked about the Comfort Suites just to the west of this project and that its
parking lot is located in front. She asked if the project was reviewed under the Land
Use Code or the previous Land Development Guidance System.
Planner Olt replied that it came in under the Land Development Guidance System.
Member Craig asked if it had come in under the Land Use Code we probably would
have bumped the building up to Oakridge Drive so it would meet the setback.
Planner Olt replied that it is conceivable that that would have happened. We also
looked at a Candlewood Hotel just to the east of this at the corner of McMurry and
Oakridge Drive. Through that determination at that time, staff looked at a compliant
plan and a preferred plan and it was setback from one street in that particular case as
well. That plan will not be moving forward, but it shows that we have seen this on
several occasions. The plan that was just approved by the Planning and Zoning Board
two months ago for the Holiday Inn Express meets the build to line standard to Wheaton
Drive to the west. It has a parking lot between the main entry and Oakridge Drive,
which would be similar to this case. In that case there were three streets surrounding
the property. With Harmony road to the north and the significant setback requirement, it
would in fact meet the setback requirements to Harmony Road and Wheaton. However
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 5
convoluted that may have been to some degree, it would appear in a sense, when built
to look like what is being proposed to the Board tonight.
Member Craig asked about the modification before the Board tonight, she said that staff
talked about distance, but did not talk about safety of pedestrians as far as going across
the parking lot, which is right at the main entrance. The only way for people to get to
restaurants is to work their way through people checking in and out of the hotel.
Planner Olt explained that there is the main entry to the building and there is a loop
sidewalk in front of the building. The pedestrian way is proposed across the internal
driveway up to the sidewalk along Oakridge Drive. The people really would not have to
conflict with the cars that are checking in. They would only have to cross the driveway
that is going from the front loop to a parking lot to the west.
Member Craig asked staff if they felt that going across that parking lot is as good as or
better than meeting the standard.
Planner Olt replied that was correct.
Angela Milewski, BHA Design representing the applicant gave a presentation to the
Board. She felt that Planner Olt had made it clear in his presentation what they were
requesting tonight. She wanted to review with the Board their reasons and opinions of
why they think this plan is equal to or better than a plan that would meet the code. Ms.
Milewski referred a sketch plan that was included in their packets that shows a plan that
would meet the code.
Ms. Milewski stated that the section of the code that is being referred to is the build to
lines. She stated "build to lines based on a consistent relationship of buildings to the
street sidewalk shall be established by a development project for buildings in order to
form visually continuous pedestrian oriented street fronts with no vehicle use area
between building faces and the street". One of the key things being asked for is making
sure you have safe pedestrian connectivity from your building to the street and the
public street adjacent to it. The first point she wants to make is about how their plan is
equal to or better than with that pedestrian safety in mind.
Ms. Milewski showed a slide of a plan that meets the code requirement. This plan
shows the building rotated and the visitor drop off faces to the west, so they do meet the
build to setback on both Oakridge Drive and the new proposed street. Having the visitor
drop off to the west allows a sidewalk connection from the entry directly out to Oakridge
Drive. It is about the same distance as on a preferred plan. The concern is that the one
direct connection, although it is a similar distance and it is direct and does not cross an
intervening drive; however it goes right to an area that is in a mid -block condition. It is
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 6
between two vehicular access points that exist today. While a pedestrian will be able to
take the sidewalk east or west to go to their destination and cross at an intersection, the
natural tendency would be to build a sidewalk and keep going across. Oakridge Drive
does all parking on the street, so it is possible that this plan will actually encourage
people to cross mid -block between cars, which they feel is a much less safe condition
for making pedestrian crossings than it would be to do that at an intersection. There is
a direct connection for pedestrians to the public road and up north. The reason they are
looking to the north is because of the restaurants there. That will be a natural
connection between the hotel and the restaurants. There is a connection to the new
public road up north to an intersection where it would be a safer crossing but it is a
much longer distance in either plan. The distance is much greater and the more direct
connection goes to a mid -block connection rather than an intersection.
Another slide shows the preferred plan. It also has two pedestrian connections (direct
in her mind). The first goes directly out of the lobby and does cross an interior parking
drive, but the amount of cars in that parking lot, in a 90-room hotel that has only
requested a small portion of parking in the entrance area, will be much less. That
sidewalk connection comes out and aligns directly adjacent to the entry into the hotel
which aligns with the entry to restaurants across the street. The pedestrians have a
natural tendency to go to that point, which is also vehicular; it is an intersection so it is a
safer crossing of Oakridge Drive.
Member Schmidt asked if the only way into the hotel was the road entry that is to the
west of the hotel. Would there be two entrances off of Oakridge.
Ms. Milewski replied that there was the main entrance off of Oakridge to the main lobby.
Also to the west, their parking lot is shown connecting with the Comfort Suites parking
lot which is another way in. Also there is an entrance to the east on the new public
road, which makes three access points for people to come to the public side of the
hotel.
Ms. Milewski talked about the second direct connection and that was to the east to the
new public road where they do meet the build to standards on that street. They are not
asking for a modification to both streets just the one. The second point was that they
are in an existing established business park in Oakridge. A lot of it was built under the
LDGS. They feel that this preferred plan better meets the existing land development
pattern that exists there today. Their preferred plan is more consistent as the code
language states to that relationship of building to sidewalk.
Ms. Milewski stated that the hotel is set up is an extended stay hotel geared toward
business people. She spoke about all the amenities and how they were geared toward
and extended stay. The plan that meets the code, although it meets the build to lines,
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 7
puts the private space at an intersection of two public streets. The plan that they prefer,
puts that more in the back area. It is adjacent to one public street, but is very different
than putting the gathering area right at the intersection of two main streets.
Ms. Milewski talked about parking distribution. The plan that meets the code and puts
the building adjacent to both public streets, forces a lot of the parking to go around the
side, especially the back of the building. The preferred plan evenly distributes the
building with smaller parking lots around the north, west and south sides of the building.
Ms. Mileweki hoped the Board would take her comments into consideration. They do
feel like it is more than just equal to, they feel that their preferred plan is better.
PUBLIC INPUT
None.
Member Craig asked about the intersection the applicant referred to in their
presentation that would be safer, she did not see that on the plan.
Planner Olt explained that there is an entry that goes into Mulligan's and Boston Pizza
Restaurants which creates an intersection with Oakridge Drive. Through slides, Planner
Olt showed the Board and explained the main entry would be to the west, the sidewalk
from that entry directly up to the sidewalk on Oakridge and then would take you across
Oakridge Drive midpoint between the entry into Mulligan's and Boston Pizza and the
shared entry between IHOP and Holiday Inn Express to the west.
Member Craig asked if there was something there that would make it safer for the
pedestrian like a light or a crosswalk. It really is just a mid -block crossing.
Planner Olt replied that there is no pedestrian crossing on Oakridge at that location.
Member Schmidt asked what the plan was for the public road. When would it be built
and is the exact location laid out already?
Planner Olt replied that the alignment has not been fully determined. Obviously the
hotel will have to build a portion of the road from Oakridge drive from the south. There
is also development plan that staff is looking at to the east and south that would fill in
the large area and would build the remainder.
Member Lingle stated that this footprint was obviously the corporate footprint that they
have given them to work with, he asked if Ms. Milewski was aware of other ways that
the building pieces could be put together that would not be just an exercise in flipping it
different way to see which way works. So they could, in a compliant plan, not end up
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 8
with the back or side elevations fronting the streets and all of the private space on the
corner.
Ms. Milewski was not aware of another footprint that they have proposed at this time.
They may exist, but in discussions with them, this is the footprint that has been looked
at that has been chosen for this site. She thought that if the modification was not
approved and they were still interested in pursuing the project that would probably be
explored.
Member Craig moved for denial of the modification of standard 3.5.3(B)(2) of the
Land Use Code for Homewood Suites by Hilton, Oakridge Business Park. She felt
that it did not feel that it meet the promoting of the general purpose of the
standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than a plan
that complies with the standard.
Member Craig remembered when the standards were made when the Land Use Code
was put together. The purpose was safety of pedestrians and we wanted to encourage
people not to get into their car and drive across the street but see a safe sidewalk to get
there without going through the parking lot. She has some very big concerns that they
are showing a lot of traffic that is going to end up going across their one real pedestrian
crossing to get to those restaurants. The purpose of those restaurants is so they can
walk to them instead of getting into their car.
Member Gavaldon seconded the motion.
Member Lingle would not be supporting the motion just from the standpoint of if the
compliant plan that is in their packet is the only compliant plan, and he did not think that
was equal to or better than what they are proposing. We have the rear and the side
elevation of the buildings fronting the street as opposed to the public side of the building
plus all the private areas of the pool and public areas on the corner, which he did not
think was a particularly safe situation. He also thinks that the Comfort Suites has set
the street front for that area and he thinks from a visual point of view it would be more
consistent for the rest of the developments to adhere to that as opposed to forcing
something in the remaining segments of the parcel that is left there in the center.
Member Gavaldon would support the motion because he also agreed that it did not
promote the general purpose of the standard.
Member Schmidt commented that she agreed with the applicant about having the
pedestrian crossing at an intersection is true. The problem is they were creating an
extra intersection with that one plan and she thought that having the three around the
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 9
way it is designed would make it more hazardous and that is why she feels it is not
better than another plan we could have so she would not be supporting the motion.
The motion was approved 4-2 with Members Meyer and Lingle voting against the
denial.
Project: Recommendation to City Council for the Land
Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan
Project Description: The Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan
replaces the NAPP, establishing a vision for the new
era 2004-2013, providing updated policies, and
documenting the accomplishments of the Natural
Areas Program's first 11 years.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Member Gavaldon stated that the reason he asked that this be pulled was he wanted a
separate vote from the consent agenda.
Member Gavaldon moved for denial of The Land Conservation and Stewardship
Master Plan from the Natural Resources Department, Natural Areas Program and
Natural Areas Management.
Member Meyer seconded the motion.
Member Craig stated that her only comment was that she would like to commend staff.
She thinks they did a good job on this and it was definitely needed. It was time for us to
look forward and decide what to do. She was fortunate enough to attend the public
workshop where staff really put it out on the table and let the citizens look at it and
decide whether they like the 1 /3 funding and some of the areas and she thanked staff
for putting this together and hopes it moves forward quickly.
Member Lingle would like to hear from Member Gavaldon why he was not supporting
this item.
Member Gavaldon responded that he was not in favor of this plan because he thinks it
needs more work, because of the funding and things like this are getting more attention
that our needed areas. He was worried about the direction this was going for the future
and overtime we are going to have to say "no" to natural areas and "no" to the funding
because we are going to need the money to pay for a Police building and for
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 10
infrastructure. Natural areas are not infrastructure to him. So the whole process is what
he does not favor.
Member Schmidt seconded Member Craig's comments. She also felt that staff did a
good job putting the plan together. The citizen's voted for this, so that part is done and
the report writes up how the money will be spent. If the citizen's vote in transportation
or Police, then a report will be written on how that money will be spent, but that has not
happened yet. Given that consideration, she felt this was a good plan and has quite a
bit of public comment. She thanked staff as was glad to see it move forward.
Member Gavaldon added that we don't have a lot of money to do a lot of things in the
city. We are going to have all natural areas and no fundamentals. Citizens can go back
and say "I think we made a mistake" and we may need to say "no" and repeal these and
go back to the basics of what Fort Collins is. We need other things more than we need
natural areas and we certainly don't need to be buying natural areas on the Wyoming
border and now we have to maintain it.
Chairperson Torgerson also felt that staff has done a good job on this one. However,
he disagrees so strongly with the one's that are up near the Wyoming border. He has
real concerns with Fort Collins buying natural areas that are so far from Fort Collins that
there are actually towns between us and them and he believes that is inappropriate.
For that reason he would be supporting the motion, but in general it is a good plan, it is
just that aspect that he disagrees with.
There was a split vote on the motion with Members Meyer, Gavaidon and
Torgerson voting for the motion and Members Craig, Lingle and Schmidt voting
against the motion to deny.
Project: Ridgeview Classic School Addition, Site Plan
Advisory Review, #16-01A
Project Description: Request for a Site Plan Advisory Review for an
11,000 square foot addition to the existing school.
The addition will include a gymnasium and additional
office space and is located along the southeast
portion of the building. The site is at the southeast
corner of Lemay Avenue and Stuart Street and is
zoned RL — Low Density Residential.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 11
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Member Gavaldon declared a conflict on this item — Ridgeview Classic School
Addition, Site Plan Advisory Review — due to his home being within the
notification area for this project.
City Planner Bob Barkeen gave the staff presentation, recommending approval of the
Site Plan Advisory Review. Ridgeview Classic School is a charter school within the
Poudre School District and this review is a location, character, and extent review as per
state statute and is based on City Plan. The site is located in the RL — Low Density
Residential District. This proposal is for an 11,000 square foot addition to be located to
the northeast of the main buildings. The current enrollment at the school is just under
600 students. The addition is not anticipated to affect that enrollment aside from the
annual increases which will put the enrollment at about 720 students. Mr. Barkeen
noted that the traffic study was based on a 720-student enrollment.
Larry Trampe, Architectural Resource Group, gave the applicant's presentation. He
stated that the maximum allowed enrollment at the school is 810 and that current
enrollment is 585. Mr. Trampe added that the proposed addition will not increase
enrollment.
Mr. Trampe stated that the new elevations will be brick and Exterior Insulated Finish
System, which is essentially what the other additions have been. The height of the
existing building will also be matched. There are 146 parking stalls plus 5 handicap
stalls, totaling 151 spaces, and no additional parking is planned. Also, no additional site
lighting is planned.
Gene Cappola, Traffic Engineer, gave a presentation on the traffic study. He stated that
there is an existing 2-lane entrance on Stuart, an existing 2-lane exit on Stuart, and a
right -in, right -out on Lemay, which is only used for exiting traffic at this time. In the
future, there will be a % turn on Lemay which will allow a left turn in, but not out. The
proposal is to install a left -turn signal as well as change the southern most eastbound
lane on Stuart, be converted to a right -turn lane inbound to the school. The students will
be dropped off in certain areas depending on their grade.
Mr. Trampe noted that there is currently a joint parking agreement between the school
and the business park to the north. The current proposal will change the location of the
business park parking to another location on the site.
Member Craig asked what the enforcement mechanisms would be to make parents go
the correct route in the parking lot. She also asked what was in the modular buildings
when they were on the site.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 12
Mr. Trampe deferred the questions to Mr. Carpine, Vice -Principal at Ridgeview Classic
School.
Dominic Carpine replied that there is a traffic pattern to which parents adhere
throughout the year. The parking lot is patrolled by the Principal and Vice -Principal and
internal tickets are written to parents who do not follow the procedures. The current
classes being held in the modular building now are elementary music classes. There
were originally 6 modular buildings, all of which have now been integrated into the
building.
Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman stated that he wanted to clarify and correct
something in the staff report, in which Planner Barkeen mentioned Statute 31.23.209
which is the general statute for reviewing public buildings. In this case, since it is a
charter school, a more specific statute applies. The school district statute is CRS
32.22.124 which has a special section dealing with charter schools. It states that when
the Board receives a site development plan, then the Board may "review and comment
on such plan to the reviewing body of the charter school." It does not limit the Board to
location, character, and extent. If the Board is not satisfied with the response that it has
received from the governing board of the charter school, it may request a hearing before
the Board of Education regarding the plan. Such a hearing must be held within 30 days
after the request of the Planning Commission to the School Board. Following that, the
charter school may proceed with its site development plan unless prohibited from doing
so by School Board resolution. The School Board can make comments to the Planning
Commission at any time, starting tonight at the hearing.
Public Input
Bill Benson, 1817 South Lemay Avenue, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that
the existing traffic patterns involve illegal turns and unsafe maneuvers by drivers. He did
not approve of the change in turn lanes.
Jerry Gavaldon, 1252 Solstice Lane, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that he
is a member of the Stonehenge Community Association Board of Directors and is
presenting the minority opinion of that Board. Mr. Gavaldon started by stating that the
Association had asked for a fence to be installed on the site and were told that that
would be done with no conditions. Approximately 6 months later, the Association was
informed that there was a condition — that the Association must not oppose the new
addition to the School. The School was told back in 2001 that the Association wanted a
traffic study, a parking plan, and for the School to work with the neighbors. Mr.
Gavaldon stated that the neighbors were promised that the modular buildings would be
removed and one is still there. There is also dead grass and weeds. It has taken some
strong pull from the School Board and the City to get the School to follow through on
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 13
their original commitments from 2001. It comes down to commitment, follow-through,
and working with integrity.
Carmen Mendoza-Luevane, 1248 Solstice Lane, gave her testimony to the Board. She
stated that she is totally against the new addition due to the music noise that will be
emitted from the addition. She stated that she works from home and is bothered by the
noise from the playground. She also stated that enrollment will increase because it
means more money for the school and added that the traffic has decreased the quality
of living in that area. The roads are not designed for this amount of traffic.
David Swiss, 1212 Solstice Lane, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that all of
the cars for 800 students drive by his home every day, twice a day. He added that the
151 parking spaces will be dramatically insufficient when the large number of younger
students turn 16 and are driving to school. When the building was a church, there were
no traffic or parking problems.
David Cloyd, President of the Stuart Professional Park Business Homeowners
Association, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that the entrance and exit point
of the school is almost directly across Stuart from the entrance and exit to the
Professional Park and stated that the primary concern is traffic and safety. He stated
that the parking agreement between Ridgeview and Stuart Professional Park was not a
private agreement but one drawn up, he believed, by the Planning and Zoning Board
when that property was developed a number of years ago. The agreement runs in
perpetuity with the property. He also stated concern about what type of use will occupy
the building in the future if the school relocates.
John Difalco, 4102-1136 East Stuart Street and member of the Stuart Professional Park
Association, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that this proposal is not only a
traffic, environmental, and safety potential disaster; it creates several legal conflicts
which have the potential for continuing conflicts, lawsuits, and hard feelings in a very
nice neighborhood. He stated that the parking agreement was mandated by a previous
P&Z Board and Council. Though the developer acknowledges the existence of this
agreement, he incorrectly states that the matter is currently being negotiated. There are
no current negotiations going on between Stuart Professional Park and anyone
regarding this agreement. The agreement runs with the land and supercedes any
zoning issues. It was mandated by the Zoning authority and the Council and basically
allowed anyone to park in the lots on Saturdays and Sundays because of the higher
number of cars at the church. Then, during the week, the overflow from the Professional
Park could park at the church, which is now the school and is full during the week.
Expanding the building on to existing parking spaces further violates this agreement.
This is a school issue as well as a neighborhood issue. He stated that he would
recommend this be referred to the School Board.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 14
Public Input Closed
Chairperson Torgerson asked Deputy Attorney Eckman to comment on the legalities of
the parking agreement and what the implications of that will be for the Board's decision
tonight.
Attorney Eckman replied that, in Mr. Difalco's letter, he states that that agreement was
reached between the parties in order to obtain City Council approval of the respective
construction projects. Mr. Eckman stated that he did not know the history of that.
Planner Barkeen stated that the Professional Park was conditioned upon the approval
of the Stuart Business Park to obtain this agreement.
Attorney Eckman stated that the City parking requirements at the time were different
than they are now. At that time, we had imposed minimum parking requirements and we
do not do so now.
Planner Barkeen stated that there used to be minimum parking requirements for both
the church use and the office park use. Whereas, under the current Land Use Code, the
office park has a maximum parking requirement. The school also has a maximum
parking requirement based on the fact that it has entered into this parking agreement.
Otherwise, it would have a minimum parking requirement.
Chairperson Torgerson asked if the parking agreement being out of compliance would
also put the Professional Park out of compliance with that condition of approval.
Planner Barkeen replied that they are not out of compliance with the parking
requirement because they could have no parking on that site and be in compliance with
the current Land Use Code.
Chairperson Torgerson asked if the agreement was a condition of approval, and it is
now not being adhered to, would the Professional Park be out of compliance.
Attorney Eckman replied that that may be the case.
Member Craig stated that some kind of legal agreement was obtained between the
Professional Park and the church, so the business park would be in compliance. That
agreement stated that it would go with the property in perpetuity. Given that, Member
Craig asked if the church property would still have to comply with that.
Attorney Eckman replied that that would be a comment the Board may want to make to
the School Board.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 15
Chairperson Torgerson stated that another concern was the number of parking stalls.
He noted that on school sites, there is a maximum allowable but not a minimum
requirement.
Planner Barkeen replied that schools normally have a minimum requirement, which, on
this site would be one space per every 1,000 square feet of floor area which would yield
a minimum requirement of 64 spaces, which they more than exceed. There is another
section in the Code which states that if the site has a shared parking arrangement, they
are subject to the maximum requirements, which is how the project was reviewed and
they are in compliance with the maximum allowable which is 236 spaces.
Chairperson Torgerson noted the citizen concerns about noise and asked how the Code
would treat that sort of concern.
Planner Barkeen replied that it would be a noise complaint that would have to be
assessed.
Attorney Eckman replied that noise is generally measured as decibels on the property
line. There is a general unreasonable noise provision in the Code but that usually has to
be very loud. It is doubtful that a music room would do this.
Chairperson Torgerson noted the concern about enrollment increasing and asked if the
Board would typically have a cap on enrollment, other than what the building code
would dictate.
Planner Barkeen replied that the school is aiming for a maximum of 60 students per
grade which would be 720 students total.
Member Schmidt asked where the 810 number came from.
Planner Barkeen replied that 810 is the maximum occupancy of the building per the
building code.
Mr. Trampe stated that Poudre School District has approved Ridgeview for 810 students
and enrollment would continue to increase regardless of this addition. Chances are,
they would never reach that 810 before moving to another site. Approximately half of
the addition is for uses like band, karate, music, etc. and is considered as gymnasium
space. There will also be about 6 classrooms in the addition.
Vice -Chairperson Meyer stated that when it comes to noise for the neighborhood, the
charter schools need to go to the school district and find out how they determine where
a school is going to be located. Ridgeview does not have enough land for the number of
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 16
students either. This may be a fine school but it is not in the right location. This has
been an unpleasant experience for the neighbors, business park, and the school.
Member Lingle asked what the size of the lot is.
Chairperson Torgerson replied that it is 4.048 acres
Member Lingle asked how charter schools relate to the School District and if they are
exempt from the School District's site development standards. The minimum size the
School District would buy would be 10 acres.
Mr. Carpine replied that he did not feel comfortable answering that question because he
was not involved in the school when they applied for charter status. He introduced Mrs.
Schunck who was one of the founders of the school to answer the question.
Peggy Schunck, Vice -President of the Board of Directors for Ridgeview Classical
Schools, replied that they are exempt from the PSD size standards. A charter school
can exist anywhere the P&Z Board and School Board determine is allowable. She
added that the P&Z Board did turn down the original request for the school but the
School Board approved it. Mrs. Schunck added that the playground will be moved
further away from the neighborhood that is complaining about the noise. The new
addition will be between the neighborhood and playground to help buffer the noise. The
addition will be highly insulated because it will be next to classrooms. The size of the
school is growing, regardless of the addition, by about 80 students per year.
Member Schmidt asked what the approximate breakdown of the ages of the students is.
Mrs. Schunck replied that there are approximately 350 K-6th graders and about 150 7th-
12th graders. It will be a while before the junior and high schools fill up. When it does,
we plan on moving at least part of the school if not the whole thing. The reason we are
in the building at all is because it was, and still is, the only available building in Fort
Collins.
Chairperson Torgerson asked if the project was designed relative to the criteria within
the Land Use Code.
Mr. Trampe replied that he did look at those criteria.
Chairperson Torgerson noted that in the RL zone district, there is a maximum building
coverage of 1/3 of the total site area and it appears that this addition will exceed that
requirement.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 17
Mr. Trampe replied that it would exceed that, very slightly.
Chairperson Torgerson stated that the allowable floor area that exceeds it is about
4,000 square feet, almost half of the proposed addition. He asked if it was appropriate
to look at the Land Use Code and see if the project complies.
Attorney Eckman replied that it is appropriate and suggested that comments be made in
the form of a motion as well as inquire if there is anyone present who is authorized to
respond to the Board's comments.
Mrs. Schunck stated that the parking agreement easement has not been available since
they have owned the building. The Professional Park employees were not parking there
before and are not parking there now, aside from about 5 or 6 individuals. However,
they do have access to the entire parking lot and they still do. The agreement states
that the school has the right to reserve up to 20 spaces that the Professional Park
employees are not allowed to park in; which has not been done. The Professional Park
has breached their part of the agreement as they were supposed to keep up the
maintenance of the parking lot and have not done so.
Chairperson Torgerson asked about changing the "pork chop" to allow for a %
movement in the intersection and a concern about cars stacking in the 2-way left -turn
lane.
Eric Bracke, Traffic Operations, responded that the stacking for the northbound left turn
is not that great. Opening it up will help distribute that traffic. At times, the traffic coming
off Stuart Street will cause a back up on Lemay. He added that the school has worked
well with the City in terms of staggering start times and other things. The City does not
think the left turn lanes will be a problem.
Chairperson Torgerson asked if the left -turn arrow and striping were done at the City's
expense.
Mr. Bracke replied that they were because there is other traffic in the area and there
were comments that people wanted that before the school went in. The overall expense
is pretty minor.
Member Craig asked what happens to the people that live on Lemay and want to head
north, given the stacking heading southbound.
Mr. Bracke replied that it really cannot be done now anyway during peak hours,
regardless of the school.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 18
Chairperson Torgerson asked what happens when the school moves on and another
use is allowed.
Mr. Bracke replied that the situation can be evaluated and the access can be modified
as part of his purview.
Member Lingle asked what other structures have a similar bulk, mass, and scale to this
one in the immediate vicinity.
Planner Barkeen replied that there are probably not any structures that have a 59,000
square foot footprint in the vicinity but there are structures across the street that are
two-story buildings with comparable height and mass.
Chairperson Torgerson asked if the addition's architecture meets the base, body, and
top provisions of the Code Section 3.5.3(D)(6).
Planner Barkeen replied that it may not have met the standards entirely but the key was
to match what is out there now. They did do some top banding on the addition which
brings it closer to meeting those standards but it does not meet the base and top
treatments and the recesses within the walls. The main goal was to match the existing
building.
Member Schmidt stated that she was concerned about the traffic study because the first
part said that, right now, the school is having a slightly higher number of trips than the
average charter school would have. She asked if the higher number of students was
built in to the traffic study.
The traffic engineer replied that he did not reduce any existing traffic — he just prorated it
up from 580 to 720 students. It still worked with that number.
Member Craig asked about the easement and parking agreement and the use of
parking reservation. She stated that she interpreted it to mean that only 20 spaces could
be reserved and the remainder of the parking would be open for whomever.
Attorney Eckman replied that he interpreted it the same way but there seems to be a
contingency in paragraph 2 that this whole agreement is contingent upon the Stuart
Professional Park being approved. The agreement was probably an accommodation
from the church to the Professional Park to begin with.
Member Craig asked how this whole issue would fit into the comments made by the
Planning and Zoning Board.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 19
Attorney Eckman replied that the P&Z Board may want to comment that the School
Board may want to look at this to see if it would expose the School District to litigation
should it move forward because it might be causing the Professional Park to fall out of
compliance with the City's regulations.
Chairperson Torgerson suggested that the Board go into executive session to discuss
this matter given that it might end up in court.
Attorney Eckman replied that it would be appropriate.
Mr. Difalco stated that the parking agreement is not an easement agreement, it is a
restrictive covenant. To change it would require the vote of % of all the land owners in
Stuart Professional Park. It is meant to be a very permanent agreement to which
changes cannot be readily made. He added that the only restraint on the number of
students in the building comes from the fire code and increasing the building size will
increase the maximum occupancy. He also asked, if the school is going to move away
anyway, why not do it now?
Attorney Eckman stated that the document title is a "Reciprocal Easement Agreement."
Mr. Difalco replied that it runs with the land and has been made part of the plat. That is
the premise upon which it is concluded to be a restrictive covenant.
Attorney Eckman asked if Mr. Difalco felt at liberty to share any of the claims they might
bring and against whom.
Mr. Difalco replied that they would prefer not to bring any claims against anyone and
suggested turning the issue over to the School District and letting them deal with it. He
noted that every single owner of property at Stuart Professional Park could file an
individual lawsuit for the violation of that restrictive covenant.
Member Lingle moved to adjourn and re -convene in executive session.
Member Schmidt seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-0.
Chairperson Torgerson welcomed the audience back and noted that this is somewhat of
an unorthodox review in that the Board is called on to offer comments and then
responses to those comments are given by a School Board representative. Then, if the
P&Z Board is satisfied with those, the project can proceed. If they are not satisfied, an
appeal can be filed with the Poudre School Board. Mr. Torgerson asked if there was a
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 20
representative of the Ridgeview Classical School Board authorized to respond to the
comments tonight. If so, did that person want to respond tonight or receive comments
and respond at a later date.
Mrs. Schenck replied that she had some authority to represent the Board as a whole but
added that the Board consists of 5 members and they make decisions as a Board.
Attorney Eckman stated that the statute requires the P&Z Board to review the project,
and then make comments. The Ridgeview Board is then asked to respond to the
comments. He asked Mrs. Schenck if she felt authorized to respond to the comments
tonight or if she would rather wait and confer with her Board.
Mrs. Schenck replied that she would like to respond to the comments she feels qualified
to do so and will not respond to any she does not feel authorized by her Board to do.
Mr. Trampe stated that he had calculated the building coverage on the lot and came up
with 343 square feet over the 1/3 coverage.
Chairperson Torgerson stated that he added up the numbers provided on the site plan
and came up with 62,016 square feet total.
Mr. Trampe stated that for total floor area, there are 59,120 square feet.
Chairperson Torgerson reminded Mr. Trampe that the garages and storage buildings
count as floor area as well and that they were added into his calculations. The 62,016
square feet exceeds the maximum allowable by just under 4,000 square feet. Mr.
Torgerson suggested that the Board put together a package of comments and then vote
on them as a Board. The representative from the school could then respond or wait until
a later date.
Chairperson Torgerson commented that the building exceeds the maximum coverage
allowable within the zone district pretty substantially and that the building does not meet
the architectural character aspects of the Code in Section 3.5.3(D)(6).
Member Lingle commented that the issue of the left -turn lane on Lemay is a concern in
terms of operational aspects and not knowing what the future use of the building will be.
Member Craig commented that adding this addition and decreasing the parking may
push the Stuart Professional Park out of compliance and that the easement agreement
could become, or is, an issue.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 21
Chairperson Torgerson commented that this is within the Low Density Residential zone
district and the purpose of that is just as it says. Though schools are allowed, it is more
typical for the school to have less intensity and more land associated with it. A primarily
impervious, high -intensity use within the RL zone district is fundamentally in conflict with
that zone district.
Member Schmidt commented that, by adding this addition, it sort of ties in the next use
of the facility to again being a large facility with a great deal of traffic. It just keeps
compounding the problem even if the school does not decide to stay there.
Member Schmidt moved to refer these comments to the Board of the Ridgeview
Classical Charter School.
Member Lingle seconded the motion.
The motion was approved ".
Chairperson Torgerson asked Mrs. Schenck if she wanted to address those comments
this evening.
Mrs. Schenck replied that she would address some of the items.
Attorney Eckman stated that if Mrs. Schenck felt comfortable commenting, together with
the architect, and are authorized to do so on all of the comments, then it would be
assumed that the P&Z Board should take her response as the official response. If,
however, there are some items Mrs. Schenck is unable to respond to at all, that will
mean that we will have to wait.
Mr. Carpine asked what kind of timeframe would be involved if they chose to wait to
respond to comments.
Chairperson Torgerson replied that it would fall on the next scheduled meeting, June
17th. 2004.
Mrs. Schenck stated that they are prepared to respond. She started with the school
zoning stating that they are zoned for a K-12 school and do fit under that compliance.
As far as whether the school moves or not, the original plan of the school was a very
large campus with 3 buildings for elementary, junior high, and high school. The
realization of that will depend on finances which are not the same as a regular public
school. Another option may be to move part of the school to another location at some
time. Therefore, it is possible that the enrollment at this location might decrease if some
of the classes are moved to another site.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 22
Mrs. Schenck went on to discuss the parking agreement with Stuart Business Park. She
stated that the church gave the Professional Park the option to park on their lot because
they did need it at the time to be able to develop. That was when the parking policy was
different and they needed those extra spaces. As it is now, both Ridgeview Classical
School and Stuart Business Park parking on their own sites fits the current parking
guidelines. Therefore, Stuart Business Park would not be affected and would not be out
of compliance. Additionally, Ridgeview has no intentions of taking parking away from
the Business Park; they just want to move the existing easement to another location.
The existing easement is not being used at this time and has not been used since the
school has been there. There is plenty of room to park and Ridgeview would have no
problem continuing to share the parking with them.
With respect to the left -turn lane, Mrs. Schenck stated that it was the City's idea, not the
schools, and the school would take any suggestions from the City as to the best
situation.
Mrs. Schenck stated that the architecture would be a point of negotiation and that the
goal with it was to make the addition as similar in style to the existing building as
possible.
As far as exceeding the limit on the square footage of the building, Mr. Trampe stated
that the square footage shown is what the school actually needs for their functions. He
added that he had not taken the garage into consideration. One option would be to get
rid of the garage but it is a storage facility at this time. Basically, the school needs this
square footage.
Mrs. Schenck asked if she missed any of the Board's comments.
Chairperson Torgerson replied that she responded to everything.
Attorney Eckman told the Board that, now that they have heard the response to
comments, they can request a hearing before the Poudre School Board if they are not
satisfied with the response. If they are satisfied, they would obviously not request a
hearing. The hearing would need to be held within 30 days after the request of the
Planning Commission. Then, the charter school may proceed with its site development
plan unless prohibited from doing so by School Board resolution. If a request for a
hearing is to be made, it should be done by Planning Director Gloss in writing.
Member Craig asked if Planner Barkeen instructed the architect to make the addition
look like the rest of the building.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 23
Planner Barkeen replied that he requested that the addition match the existing building,
as per the contextual standards of the Code.
Member Craig asked if those standards override the criteria relating to the other
architectural design elements.
Planner Barkeen replied that, given the fact that this is a PSD project; staff felt it was
appropriate to have them match the existing building as much as possible rather than
doing something that does not match but meets Section 3.5.3 of the Land Use Code.
Chairperson Torgerson noted that the school would still exceed the maximum allowable
square footage for the zone district whether or not they took the garages out. He added
that the Land Use Code standards would have to be met for any other developer — they
would not be allowed to match what was there.
Planner Barkeen stated that when expansions are done on existing buildings, they do
typically fall back to the same character of the approved architectural elevations unless
for some reason, the nature of the request exceeds the realm of the previously
approved project.
Chairperson Torgerson stated that they did not comply in the first place under the Land
Use Code, and after being turned down by the Planning and Zoning Board, the School
Board overrode the decision and let them build it anyway.
Member Lingle again raised concern about the left -turn lane stacking on Lemay stating
that if that was at the traffic staffs recommendation, there is no real remedy.
Member Craig reiterated her concern about the easement agreement and stated that
she did not feel like it was completely addressed and that the Poudre School District
needs to be aware of it.
Member Lingle suggested that issue could be written in a letter stating the Board's
concern — a hearing may not be necessary just for that.
Member Craig commented that she wanted a hearing for more issues than just that.
Vice -Chairperson Meyer agreed that the School Board needs to hear the concerns at a
hearing.
Attorney Eckman noted that the state statute does not require the P&Z Board to
enumerate the issues to be discussed with the Board of Education, although it may be
courteous to do that.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 24
Chairperson Torgerson stated that all of the comments should be discussed and the
minutes of this meeting should go to them as well.
Vice -Chairperson Meyer moved to request a hearing of the Board of Education on
the Ridgeview Classic School Addition Site Plan Advisory Review, File #16-01A,
including the concerns brought up previously.
Member Schmidt seconded the motion.
Planning Director Gloss asked if any of the concerns the Board raised were responded
to adequately by the applicant.
Chairperson Torgerson replied that the only one, in his opinion, was the left on Lemay
as it was a City -initiated change.
Member Lingle stated that if this were a regular PDP, he would not support that
condition from staff.
Chairperson Torgerson stated that the list of concerns that made up the motion is the
list that should be passed on to the School Board.
The motion was approved 6-0.
Attorney Eckman noted that as many Planning and Zoning Board members as possible
should attend that School Board hearing, particularly the Chairperson.
Project: Drake Crossing Wireless Telecommunication Facility
— Project Development Plan, #35-96C
Project Description: Request for a 65-foot wireless telecommunication
facility located at the northwest corner of Drake Road
and Taft Hill Road, within the Drake Crossing
Shopping Center. The facility has been designed to
limit impacts on the surrounding properties, by
mounting the antennas within a canister located at the
top of the pole. The associated ground equipment is
located in an enclosure next to the pole. The
enclosure is attached to the east end of the Fort
Collins Car Wash Building, and will use the same
brick that is found on the car wash building. The
property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 25
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Bob Barkeen, City Planner gave the staff presentation recommending approval
including a modification for the setback based on the height of the monopole. Our
telecommunication ordinance requires that for each one foot of pole height that there is
one foot setback from any property line that the facility is located within. The parcel
that it is located on is the Drake Crossing Car Wash which is at the northwest corner of
Drake Road and Taft Hill Road, more specifically just south of Valley Forge Avenue.
The property line that it is next to is only about 15 feet, therefore if they were going to
follow the criteria of the code, the pole itself would only be 15 feet tall. Therefore the
applicant has requested a modification because the pole is 65 feet in height. The basis
for the modification is that it is not detrimental to the public good and also that there is a
hardship on the property due to the location of existing buildings, drives and also the
relative closeness if they were to put it on the other side of the car wash next to Taft Hill
Road, it would be even more obtrusive both to the neighborhood and to Taft Hill Road,
which is a major arterial.
The criterion that is used to review the actual Project Development Plan for this is
included in Sections 3.8.13 of the Land Use Code. There are a number of criteria used
to determine whether or not a facility like this should be proposed or not. When staff
reviewed this application, basically it was determined it met the majority of the criteria,
although the one criteria that was struggled with was whether or not the applicant has
pursued all possible locations within this general area to convert this from a wireless
telecommunications facility to co -location on an existing structure. The applicant has
pursued other locations however they continue to say that this is not only the preferred
site, but the only site they were successful in securing a lease on upon which they can
build a facility.
Planner Barkeen reviewed site shots for the Board.
Planner Barkeen stated that through the public process there were two neighborhood
meetings held for this application. There have been a number of public concerns about
this application. Staff included several public petitions received in the Board's packet,
as well as some of the notes from the two neighborhood meetings. He reviewed some
other possible options in the area.
Ann Closser, representing Verizon Wireless gave the applicants presentation.
David Born, Engineer with Verizon Wireless gave a handout to the Board of the Power
Point presentation. Mr. Born explained that the main reason they are looking at this site
is the area in question has too much traffic on it. Mr. Born showed a slide depicting the
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 26
increase in traffic in that sector. He stated that at the capacity it is at, service is not
maintained in the area. The height of the pole would be 65 feet.
Kelly Harrison, Site Acquisition and Zoning Consultant for Verizon Wireless stated that
there coverage objective was to find a site between Prospect Road and Drake and
Overland Trail and Taft Hill. She has contacted 14 properties and pursued them over
the last year. Ms. Harrison went through the 14 sites and described for the Board why
each site would not work.
PUBLIC INPUT
Pete Seal, 1837 Scarabourgh Drive was there to represent his neighborhood, Rolland
Moore West. He stated that they were opposed to the tower. They were opposed
because they already have two cell towers along the south end of their neighborhood
along Drake Road. They are ugly towers and the proposed tower is more aesthetically
pleasing, but is still a cell tower. It is 65 feet tall and it would dominate their western
view from their neighborhood. The applicant is asking for a variance from the code,
which states that they have to have a foot setback for each foot of height. They say
they have 15 feet from the property line, but if you look at their pictures it is only about 5
feet from the nearest bay to the carwash. Their biggest concern is safety because it is
not nearly far enough from the property line and it is closer to where cars would be
entering the carwash. Although it is only 65 feet tall and does not have an ugly top to it,
anyone else can come along under Federal Law and co -locate on that tower. All of a
sudden there will be a 75 or 80 foot tower. For those reasons they are opposed to the
tower.
Jim Nye 2337 Valley Forge Avenue stated that his issues boil down to an interpretation
of 3.8.13, co -location. He is having a hard time understanding co -location and did this
applicant do as the code says in item (B) and try and co -locate on the towers that are
already in existence. There are approximately 80 cell phone towers in the city, this one
and three more in the process. In his opinion there has to be a better way than sticking
another tower up. His second issue is with the definition of "stealth" in Section
3.8.13(C)(15) Stealth Technology, "to the extent reasonably feasible, the applicant shall
employ stealth technology so as to covert the wireless telecommunication facility as by
the best method which to mitigate or camouflage visual impacts. Stealth technology
consists of but is not limited to the use of grain bins, silos, elevators, church steeples,
water towers, clock towers, bell towers, false penthouses or other similar "mimic"
structures". Mr. Nye stated he was sure they have some creative people and if the
Board would approve this, maybe they could be a little more creative with how they are
trying to do this.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 27
As far as the location at Rolland Moore Park, he did visit with Terry Keith at Parks and
Recreation. He indicated that he thought the light standards at Rolland Moore were 60
feet and he thought the city did lease their light standards to wireless companies. They
have them at City Park right now and they put extensions on those light standards at
City Park softball fields to expand the height at 70 feet. He thought there were other
options available to Verizon and he urged the Board to deny this application.
Gail Zitzloft, 2048 Manchester Drive spoke about the green space in between her home
and this site. Her husband and she very deliberately picked an older section of town to
have character in the homes and trees that were already 50 feet tall. They love the
character of the older neighborhood. She has worked all her life to help other people
improve their quality of life. Tonight the tables are turned and she stood before the
Board asking for their help with their quality of life. Don't let this variance go through.
Across the street from this is a daycare that no one has mentioned yet, and we have a
65 foot pole proposed across the street from that daycare. At the first neighborhood
meeting there were 45 people that were keen on changing the design or the location.
At the second meeting there were only 15 back for a second round, but no changes had
been made with the location or design. Tonight they don't have 45 people, but the
names are on the petition.
Richard Vail 2004 Yorktown Avenue stated that everyone has covered what he was
going to say, but there is one thing in Section 3.8.13(C) that he thought needed read.
"Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment located in or near the foothills
bear a special responsibility for mitigating visual disruption. If such a location is
selected the applicant shall provide computerized, three dimensional visual simulation
of the facility or equipment and other appropriate graphics". He showed the picture that
was provided and commented that the picture does shows what it will look like. He
stated that from his front yard, when there isn't a lot of foliage on the trees, he will be
able to see this pole very well because it is between him and the foothills. It will block
his view of the foothills. There were other issues brought up at the meetings such as
their equipment facility next to the carwash. There will not be a site line for people
coming in and out of the carwash and gas station.
Dan McArthur, 2424 Sheffield Circle West asked that this variance be denied, primarily
because it is not in compliance with the setback requirements. The primary
consideration in this review is whether it is in the public good. Clearly this is detrimental
to the public good. Clearly the applicant has not considered the entire alternative but
taken the path of least resistance. It is not his neighborhoods responsibility to suffer for
Verizons business needs. It is not for them to become a sacrifice zone. He was very
concerned about the proliferation of these towers and asked that the Board set
extremely high expectations for those who would impose these permanent blights on
their neighborhood.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 28
Katherine Azari, 2424 Sheffield Circle West stated her issue was ugliness. She grew up
in this town and remembered when we changed the sign code. It was changed for a
reason because they were ugly. She also remembered when the power lines were
buried, because they were ugly. Cell phone use is going up and will be here, there is no
question that we need them but there should be a standard set now, so we don't end up
paying for it later. She did not want her neighborhood to be the experiment, because it
can't be taken away once it is up. She feels sorry for Verizon and she has understood
every technical thing they have said, but they are not a public utility and she did not feel
that her neighborhood should be used just because it happens to be in the middle of the
city. She did not expect that they would be the beginning of an inter city blight around
their neighborhood. If you go down Drake toward the foothills, it is ugly and terrible.
The power lines are huge and ugly and there is nothing they can do about it. They can
do something about this if they are creative and thoughtful and looking forward. That is
what she asked of the Board tonight.
PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED
Member Craig asked about Section 3.8.13(C)(1), setbacks, and was structure
collapsible and if not is that why they are making a request for a modification from this
section.
Director Gloss replied that the applicant has not indicated that this is a collapsible
facility.
Member Craig asked the applicant to address how this was not detrimental to the public
good if it topples instead of collapsible.
Ms. Closser responded that these towers are substantially over engineered. In fact a
soils test is performed and based on the composition of the soils, a structural engineer
will make a foundation recommendation for the pole. That foundation recommendation
will take into consideration the height, any horizontal mass associated with the pole,
wind loading, and ice loading. If the anticipated wind load is 90 mph, it will be
engineered to withstand winds up to 180 miles an hour. Ms. Closser read a letter from
a structural engineer as to the rare failure of monopoles. She submitted for the record
several letters from structural engineers.
Ms. Closser could not say how much of the structure if failed would bend. The fact is
that they are way over engineered and the likelihood of any kind of toppling or failure in
this environment, given the analysis that is undertaken before it is constructed and
ordered is remote.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 29
Discussion was held regarding other places within this site the pole could be located to
meet the setback requirements but easements, proximity to Taft Hill Road and the
cutting down of trees prohibited that.
Planner Barkeen stated that he was sure it would be possible to meet the setbacks
within this lot, you would probably have to put it in the very center of the lot right next to
the carwash building. Is that really a better situation than having it being located further
away from Taft Hill, Valley Forge and the adjacent neighborhood.
Member Lingle stated he just trying to see if there was a justification for the hardship
because it is more beneficial for a lot of reasons.
Planner Barkeen stated that putting it somewhere else on the property would require
relocating something else.
Stealth technology was discussed and whether this project meets that standard.
Member Gavaldon moved for denial of the modification for the setback standards
citing 4 E and F because it would be a detriment to the public good because of
the safety and the visual factors of adjacent properties. He also believes that
there is no undue hardship as demonstrated by the discussion and the location
of this particular site.
Member Craig seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 6-0.
The applicant requested a continuance to the July hearing.
Member Gavaldon moved to continue the Drake Wireless Telecommunications
Facility PDP, #35-96C to the third week of July.
Member Craig seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 6-0.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 30
Project: Recommendation to City Council for the Spring 2004
Biannual Revisions, Clarifications, and Additions to
the Land Use Code
Project Description: Request for a recommendation to City Council from
the Planning and Zoning Board regarding the update
to the Land Use Code. There are proposed revisions,
clarifications and additions to the Code that address a
variety of subject areas that have arisen since the last
update in the fall of 2003.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Hearina Testimonv, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, gave the staff presentation. He stated that there are 18
items for consideration with respect to the revisions, clarifications, and additions to the
Land Use Code. Item 545 will be addressed as a separate item and the others could be
considered as a group, unless otherwise decided by the Board.
Planner Shepard noted that Item 545 had to do with natural resources buffer standards.
Natural Resources Director, John Stokes, gave a presentation regarding Item 545 which
involves changes to Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code, particularly relating to raptor
buffer standards. He noted that a sub -committee of the Natural Resources Advisory
Board, builders and consultants, and members of the Sierra Club and Homebuilders
Association, have made comments. Mr. Stokes noted that the Code presently requires a
1,320 foot buffer in all directions from a nesting raptor to the edge of a circle. That circle
encompasses 126 acres. It has been discovered that this buffer provides poor
outcomes for both development and conservation. The City hired a consultant to study
this issue and the consultants concluded that the buffers could be reduced, if need be.
Therefore, the proposal is to reduce them from 1,320 feet to 900 feet. From 900 feet to
450 feet, a further encroachment would be allowed with acre -for -acre mitigation. That
mitigation can be conducted in two ways — the applicant can go find acreage that is
suitable for raptor habitat as decided by staff, or a payment of $10,000 per acre can be
made in lieu. That sum is derived from the cost of land in and around the GMA — it is
selling for $10,000 to $15,000 per acre. That figure would be adjusted annually as land
prices change.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 31
Public Input
Ramon Ajero (sp?), representing the Poudre Group of the Sierra Club, 3712 Soderberg
Drive, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that his group met with a
representative of the Natural Resources Department on May 7, 2004. He stated that his
group has some large concerns with the proposed reduction of the buffer standards. He
stated that science does not support the proposed change, noting that the consultant's
report stated that the 1,320 foot buffer may even be insufficient in some cases. Mr.
Ajero stated concern about the mitigation idea stating that the replacement land may or
may not be viable in terms of nesting and foraging. The fee in lieu of land is on the low
end for land within the GMA. Mr. Ajero noted that the compromise is significant with
significant risk. He did not want to see the urban raptors "compromised" out of
existence. Mr. Ajero asked the Board to acknowledge the compromises that have
already been made and stated that he did not want to see the compromises go further.
Bill Miller, 323 Scott Avenue, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that he is the
current president of the Fort Collins Audubon Society and past member of the Natural
Resources Advisory Board. He stated that the number of raptors in the GMA has
decreased since 1990 and he fears a further reduction if this change to the buffers is
made. He asked the Board to recognize the problem of carrying capacity — a piece of
land can carry only so many of a particular species before the animals become so
competitive that they starve themselves out.
Phil Friedman, 201 S. Grant Avenue, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that he
is the vice-president of the Fort Collins Audubon Society and is a former member of the
Natural Resources Advisory Board. He stated that the original buffer standards were
determined through a long drawn -out process. He stated that he was not invited to the
May 7 meeting. He suggested that the invitees may need to be expanded for issues like
this. He stated that there is no assurance that a mitigated site would hold the same
attractiveness for nesting or roosting. He also stated concern about the $10,000 per
acre price being too low. Mr. Friedman noted conflict between City Plan and its vision
for density within the GMA and the desire to conserve raptor habitat.
Public Input Closed
Member Schmidt asked for Doug Moore or John Stokes to reply to some of the
concerns raised by the public.
Mr. Stokes replied that the conflict between City Plan's density vision and the desire to
conserve raptor habitat does not have an easy resolution. Mr. Stokes acknowledged
that the consultant's report, which cited wild land and rural studies, did state that
flushing distances can be quite large, in excess of 1,500 feet. However, there are birds
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 32
that adapt to an urban environment. There are Red -Tailed Hawks and Swainson's
Hawks living within the GMA — about 26 nest sites total. Those two species appear to
be particularly tolerant. Ferruginous Hawks do not nest here anymore because we have
exceeded their ability to tolerate human disturbance. Mr. Stokes added that the price
per acre for mitigation would change annually based on raw land real estate prices. He
apologized for not getting in touch with the Audubon Society but noted that there was
feedback from the Sierra Club and NRAB as well as outside biologists and consultants.
Mr. Stokes mentioned that the 80/20 rule which allowed a developer to encroach on up
to 20% of the buffer was removed from the Code because it became the de facto
standard and did not allow for qualitative analysis of the site.
Planner Shepard added that the 80/20 rule proved to be a bit more quantitative and was
not yielding the best results.
Mr. Stokes stated that, in terms of acquiring land, it is getting more difficult because
there is less of it and it is more expensive; but there is a steady stream of income for the
next 25 to 30 years set up to acquire land.
Member Lingle stated that one of his concerns was the wording changes to Section
3.4.1(F)(1) where we are adding the term "species of concern" or "sensitive natural
community." He stated that the Board asked exactly what that meant in terms of
numbers of species and he did not see that information in any of the materials.
Doug Moore, environmental planner, replied that "species of concern" are not
"threatened and endangered." In the GMA, there are 5 species of birds, mostly
migratory, that are "species of concern." There are also two species of fish and two
species of mammals in this category.
Member Lingle asked if we were adding any new species to these lists.
Mr. Moore replied that we were not.
Mr. Stokes stated that the "species of concern" is not additive. We already have
sensitive or specially valued species which is very much in line with what a species of
concern would be. A sensitive natural community could be viewed as additive as the
Colorado Natural Heritage Program classifies different kinds of natural communities into
a very extensive system. There are only several G1 or S1 natural communities within
the GMA. G1 means globally rare and S1 means state rare. Mr. Stokes went on to state
that there are actually no G1 areas in the GMA.
Member Meyer stated that, though we all understand threatened and endangered, this
is a new category that adds some confusion.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 33
Member Gavaldon asked if applicants are provided with copies of the Natural Areas
Policy Plan.
Mr. Moore replied that that is why we are adding this language to the Code — to simplify
the process.
Member Gavaldon asked if the applicants are provided with copies of the document to
work off of it on their own.
Mr. Moore replied that they are available just like any other document.
Member Gavaldon stated that we are legitimizing what we have been doing by putting it
in the Land Use Code.
Mr. Stokes stated that the reason we put "species of concern" in here is really a matter
of nomenclature. We had sensitive and specially valued species which people did not
understand. "Species of concern" is not an additive phrase — it encompasses what we
have in the Code already. It just makes it more clear to the applicants as to what we
mean by that.
Member Gavaldon stated concern about this and sided with the Homebuilder's
Association which believes that builders will knock the nests down at night.
Planner Shepard replied that they can do some of that removal now even with a Code
that is more restrictive. This Code change attempts to strike a balance which is a major
concession by the environmental community to the development community.
Member Gavaldon stated that he was looking at this from the home -buyer perspective —
that of the people who will ultimately pay the price for this.
Planner Shepard noted that the areas in which the mitigation would occur are in the
Commercial zone districts where there will be some very intense urban activity.
Member Craig mentioned the City Plan update process and Policy OL1.2 — Urban
Development. Within that paragraph it says "the City will conserve and integrate open
land areas into the developed landscape by directing development away from natural
habitats and features and by using innovative planning design and management
practices. When it is not possible to direct development away from natural habitats and
features, they should be integrated into the developed landscape in a manner than
conserves their integrity. If integration will not effectively conserve the integrity of the
natural habitats and features then either on site or off site mitigation will be applied."
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 34
Member Craig added that the argument Member Gavaldon is using should have come
up for this policy.
Member Gavaldon noted that he voted against that part of the policy
Member Craig stated that it was still important to note that it is policy under City Plan
that mitigation would be a way we could work with trying to protect some of these areas
Member Schmidt stated that there is a balance for the most part despite the large
concession. The mitigation at least gives an option to developers and is a good starting
point for discussions between the City and developers.
Chairperson Torgerson stated that this is an improvement to an unworkable situation.
He added that it has been mentioned that this is in the community's interest and it is for
the community's benefit; however, it may be worth considering whether the community
as a whole should participate in that mitigation. If it is a community -wide goal, is it fair to
make Mr. Timan, for example, pay for the full mitigation or, because of that benefit,
should the community as a whole be paying for part of it.
Member Craig stated that this proposal does not require the developer to pay for
anything should they not encroach on the 900 foot buffer. She also noted that
developers pay for many improvements, such as sidewalks and landscaping, which also
benefit the community as a whole.
Chairperson Torgerson responded that the difference is that the developer is unable to
use part of their land because the community as a whole wants the benefit that comes
from maintaining that as open space. Mr. Torgerson did add that this is certainly an
improvement over what we had. He stated that he absolutely agreed with protecting the
raptors but if it is a community -wide goal and community -wide benefit, it should be paid
for that way.
Member Schmidt noted that developers do have an option to sell the land to the Natural
Resources Department.
Chairperson Torgerson responded that the value of a property is reduced dramatically
because building cannot happen in the buffer areas. Therefore, the land is not even
worth $10,000 an acre because it cannot be developed. The economic benefit is
different from the benefit to the citizens as a whole.
Member Gavaldon moved that there be no changes made to the Land Use Code
Item 545, Natural Habitat and Features section.
There was no second on the motion.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 35
Member Schmidt moved for approval of the Land Use Code changes, including
Item 545, Habitat Buffer Standards, as presented.
Member Craig seconded the motion.
Member Gavaldon stated that he would not be supporting the motion and added that he
anticipated developers would "chop away."
Member Lingle stated that he would like City Council to hear the opinion that, if this is a
community -wide benefit, then the City should step up and participate in that mitigation
as a policy change into the future.
Chairperson Torgerson stated that we were already doing that by acquiring land with
the Open Space Tax funds.
Member Lingle stated that the City should be willing to buy the property for $10,000 an
acre if it is a community benefit.
Member Craig stated that she would be willing to take that as a comment but, as a
Board, it should be discussed at worksession.
Chairperson Torgerson stated that it would be a topic to be discussed at worksession.
The motion was approved 5-1, with Member Gavaldon voting in the negative.
Member Craig stated that Ramon (spoke during public input) does have a concern that
this is an experiment. It would be nice to be able to monitor whether this is actually
working in the future.
Mr. Moore responded that he was sure the Division of Wildlife would be interested in
some monitoring program as well.
Chairperson Torgerson asked to move on to the balance of the items on the Land Use
Code changes.
Mr. Shepard stated that the Board has been informed of the content of the 17 remaining
items and that there was no further presentation.
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the remaining 17 items on the Spring
2004 Land Use Code revisions, clarifications, and additions.
Member Schmidt seconded the motion.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 20, 2004
Page 36
The motion was approved 6-0.
There was no other business.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
These Minutes were approved at the July 15, 2004 Planning and Zoning Board hearing.
�� P'I*RUB Infle
September 3, 1996
Scott Bemhart
Adams County Planning and Development
4955 E. 74th Avenue
Commerce City, CO 80022
107:7 ilk 1i1:1- i'�
1545 PIDCO DRIVE
P.O. BOX 128
PLYMOUTH, INDIANA 46563-1
(219) 936-4221
FAX (219) 936-6796
Thank you for your inquiry concerning tower design codes and practices as they relate
to your tower designs in Colorado.
PROD has been designing and building guyed, self-supporting towers and monopoles
since the early 1950's. During this time, we have sold thousands of structures ranging
in height from as little as 50' high to in excess of 1400'. These structures were
individually engineered to accommodate the loading requirements imparted by the design
windspeed, ice considerations, antenna loading, and otherfactors dictated by the national
code requirements existing at the time the tower was built.
The present national tower and monopole code, ANSI/EIAMA-2222E", represents the
latest refinement of specific minimum requirements for engineers and manufacturers to
follow to help assure that the structure and its foundations are designed to meet the most
realistic conditions for local weather while assuring that the structure is designed to
stringent factors of safety.
In the case of the monopole under consideration, the owner has elected to exceed the
stipulated code requirements for windspeed and has also requested that 1/2" ice be
included in the analysis. Ice is considered on all tower members, antennas, and lines and
results in a substantially heavier tower design than one considered without ice.
The "E" version of the cede incorporates an escalating wind factor based on tower height.
"Meeting the code" implies that the design quoted has all of the code requirements for
safety factors intact at the windspeed specified. Thus, the ultimate survival speed would
be considerably higher. Again, adding ice to the design loading can also add a further
safety factor to the final tower strength.
While failure is extremely rare in any kind of tower, it is especially so for monopoles and
self-supporting towers. In fact, only if a monopole were subjected to a direct hit from a
tornado or the severest of hurricanes would failure be predicted.
Wre are aware of very few instances of monopole failure. The most common mode of
failure would be in the middle region of the monopole, with the upper portion of the
monopole remaining connected and "bowing over' against the base of the pole. The fact
that the wind is normally greater on the upper portion of the structure contributes to the
likelihood of this type of failure. Thus, if a failure condition is reached, it should be
reached in the upper middle region of the monopole first.
Needless to say, the engineering codes which govern tower and monopole designs are
extremely conservative. Monopoles are designed for extreme wind conditions, and even
under these extreme conditions, stringent factors of safety are required.
As President of the company and a registered P. E. in 45 states, I oversee all engineering
and application of our towers. I am a graduate engineer from Purdue University and have
been President of the company since 1973. 1 am assisted by two other registered
professional engineers, Mr. John Erichsen, who has been with PiROD, Inc., since 1984
and Mr. William Rettig, who has been with PiROD, Inc., since 1990. Four other qualified
engineers are also on our staff.
All of PiROD welders are certified to the high standards of AW5 D1.1 or are in the
process of becoming certified. Mathematical and physical tests are performed routinely
on structure sections and designs as required. Our total design, engineer and build
process has been quality audited by our customers including public utilities, telephone
companies and government agencies.
We trust the above and the attached will be helpful to you. If you should need anything
else, please let us know at your convenience.
APiROD loco P.O. BOX 128 PLYMOUTH, INDIANA 46563-0128 (219) 936-4221
F I S H E R
A
S S
O
C I
A
T
E
S
A Pro f e s s i
o n
a l
C o
r p o
r
a t
i o
n
ARCHITECTS
and
ENGINEERS
5655 S. Delaware Littleton, CO 80120 FAX 303-795.9342 303-795-1643
December 10, 1993
Mr. Jim Thelan
Director of Codes and Inspections
City of Littleton
2255 West Berry
Littleton, CO 80165
Re: Monopole Design for Antennas
FA93418
Dear Mr. Thelan:
I have reviewed the letter from Brian Seyferth and Associates, dated November 4, 1993, and its
attached information regarding the.design of monopole antenna towers. It is my understanding
the current City ordinance requires these towers be constructed in areas that provide an open
space adjacent to the tower that is equal to the height of the tower plus ten feet. The purpose of
this review and request is to allow construction on sites that do not meet these open area
requirements.
My review has not only included the information from Mr. Seyferth, but a review of the 1991
Uniform Building. Code and' the. appropriate engineering criteria. Section 2311 of the Building
Code establishes the engineering criteria for wind design. This is the criteria that is to be used for
building structures as well as towers. Good engineering design principles apply to both towers
and buildings.
Unlike trees or utility poles which are designed to deflect or even break in strong winds,
monopoles or other towers are designed like building structures to withstand the designed wind
load pressure. A monopole design is not subject to overturn or collapse any more than any other
engineered structure. In engineering a monopole or any tower, the 'rind loads are applied to both
the tower and antennas. The overturning moment and sheer in the monopole will be calculated at
various levels to determine the required diameter and thickness of the material. By using the
design criteria established in the UBC, a tower or monopole structure will withstand the same
wind reaction as any building, and therefore will be as sturdy and safe as a building.
It is normal for the antenna manufacturer to provide this information to the designer and in turn
this information can be submitted to the building department. This material should be stamped or
sealed by a licensed Colorado Engineer. It is also not unusual for the antenna company to design
the footings and foundation system for this monopole. Naturally there will be a soils report that
sets forth the requirements for the foundation system utilized by the designer.
Mr. rim Thelan
December 10, 1993
Page Two
By utilizing good engineering practices along with the formulas and criteria established in the
Uniform Building Code, a monopole tower design will be as safe as any building. In my opinion,
the criteria requiring a fall or collapse zone is not necessary for an engineered design of a tower or
monopole. If the information as submitted in the package I reviewed is provided to the building
department and carries a seal of a licensed Colorado Structural Engineer, this should be
acceptable criteria for the construction of a monopole antenna without a collapse or fall zone.
Please advise me if you have any questions or need further clarification.
Sincerely,
Al
``���o���pO iee i
� �i
see
rp fA •Zee4
David B. Fisher, AIA, P.E. , c, dr :'
President _ gg
DBF/ff
,' NA� t��
Valmont Industries, Inc.
Va0ey, He6rasb 68864.0358
402-359.2201
2/24/94
Mr. Warren Dunlap
P.O. Box 1122
Westcliff, CO 81252
ATTENTION: Mr. Warren Dunlap:
"I
Vi4LMONT,
SUBJECT: CELLULAR POLES FAILURE MODES AND RELIABILITY
Dear Mr. Dunlap:
I have been asked to write to you about the mode of failure and the
probability of that failure occurring for pole type structures used to
carry cellular antennas and equipment.'I think it would be appropriate to
start off by a brief description of the design:criteria that is typically
used.
The poles Valmont.-supplies.aretdesigned-in'accordance with the E:I.A. /
T.I.A. 222 Revision.E Standard. entitled "Structural Standards..for Steel
Antenna Towers and Antenna, Supporting Structures." This is an approved
A.N.S.I. standard that.has dealt with the design of lattice type
structures for a number of years. Revision E is the first version that
goes into extensive detail about the design of pole type structures. The
provisions of the standard have, as their foundation, provisions of other
nationally known specifications and standards that have a long history of
reliability. This history should be of interest to you when you consider
that hundreds of thousands if not millions of sites. throughout the United
States have structures:designed with concepts spelled out in publications
like "The Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures" (published by
A.S.C.E.), and "Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for
Highway Signs, Luminaries and Traffic Signals" '(published by
A.A.S.H.T.O.). Many of the concepts used to design poles in these two
publications are included in the E.I.A./ T.I.A. 222 Revision E Standard.
The E.I.A./ T.I.A. 222 Revision E requirements would dictate a basic
design wind speed for that.county. (see appendix A of E.I.A./T.I.A. 222
Revision E) with no ice.. Another load condition that Valmont would
consider would be a 87% of the basic design wind speed, with 0.5" radial
ice. The wind speed used depends on the location of the site within the
state. Valmont's policy is.to use the wind loading listed in E.I.A. /
T.I.A. 222 as a minimum loading. Statistically the wind speed listed in
E.I.A. / T.I.A. 222 has been determined to be that wind which has an
average reoccurrence of 50 years. This wind is also a "fastest mile"
wind which means that it
is the average velocity of a mile of wind passing a point: For
example, a 70 mph average fastest mile wind would take 51 seconds
to pass a point. This standard "fastest mile" wind is customized
with factors that apply to the particular installation. There is a
1.69 gust response factor imposed in order to account for sudden
changes in wind speed, a height coefficient to account for
increasing wind speed with height, and an exposure'.coefficient to
account for the terrain. This wind is not the wind usually
reported by the local news station.
The loads generated by this wind and the weight of the members
(along with any ice considered) are then used to size members of
the pole. There is at least a 25% factor of safety required under
these conditions. This assumes that the wind is blowing from the
worst possible direction. Some directions are worse than others
depending on the equipment attached to the pole and the
arrangement. I hope this gives you some feel for how rare an event
would be to cause a communication pole to become over stressed to
the point of failure.
Let us assume that a pole becomes overloaded. The typical
consequence of this overloading is "local buckling" where a
relatively small portion of the shaft distorts and "kinks" the
steel. This does not generally cause a free falling pole. Only a
portion of the cross section has lost its ability to carry load.
After the buckle, the cross section of the pole is capable of
carrying the entire vertical (weight) load and perhaps as much as
25 - 50% of the original load.
There are 3 mechanisms which may help prevent the pole from a free
fall type failure. First, as the pole distorts this distortion may
relieve the load from the pole either by orienting the pole more
favorably in the wind or, if buckling has occurred, by reducing the
moment arm of the wind force. The second mechanism involves a
redistribution of the stress in the pole after buckling toward the
remaining "good" portion of the pole shaft cross section. The
third phenomenon is the nature of the force being applied. We
expect the -wind to produce this.force.' A wind•.that.would cause a
buckle would be larger than the basic wind speed the gust factor
and the factor of safety combined. A gust would soon dissipate and
bring the stress in the pole down to within the capacity of the
buckled section. These loads tend not to be sustained long enough
to "blow the pole over."
After a local buckle, the pole above the buckle would not be plumb
. This out of plumb condition (which may be somewhat dramatic) is
the most obvious indication that a local buckle has occurred. If a
structure were to buckle, the section of the pole that buckled
would have to be replaced. I would not be surprised however, to
find after a thorough inspection, that the damage was limited to
the buckled section.
In general, pole design and testing has provided the public with a
very reliable product. Poles have gone through extensive full
scale testing, they have a history of being extremely reliable.
The public I think, has been well served. Valmont has provided
structures that have performed well during the -.earthquakes in
California and the hurricanes in the South. To -.my knowledge,
Valmont has never experienced an in service failure of a pole due
to weather induced overloading. even though, as iri. the case of
Hurricane Hugo and Hurricane Andrew, the wind speeds may have
exceeded the design wind speed.
I hope this has helped . Please feel free to call with any comments
you may have. I can be reached at 1-800-Valmont (1-800-825-6668)
and will be glad to discuss any concerns you may have.
Sincerely,
I(G.aw. , C9.—���v a
Thomas G. Hoffman
Design Engineer
Communication Structure Engineering
Valmont Industries Inc.
Topics
I. Wlly Vwlmn needsa nexa eel l «c at t I,
I ot... bon
L. Ilow the hdIght a drt. maned.
3. Otlle. canmdotes Venzon cons¢lu rod.
4 Lxlstmg V, lzon Cull Sao, m Ft. Collins
5 S.Ifaty
G. Shvltm Loc;lhon
]_ Iniprovemmds In Sorvlec
I r:lthc
l lors etooth Tl aff,
Luis I 1 III II.lttu. B
Tlalhc
l he Pdoun Lnn H� d m Denvul cxtonels
bom Nnw Maxlro to Wyonnr, I and include all nl
Colorado.
There :ve 1.080 toCJ sxton m the nupon
I hr li orsetooth North vector a tho Buslt,sl In
the rnbru systmn.
® . Ilorsetoo[h T lclihc
Call Pcrlornl.l llcc Vs. Suc[or Loading
ISir1,0j t➢ II fiI ,I v..
4
f �
Do of llow cans laic h nuc 111.11 Pdot P"ll I
local Povror dw II rops belo0 0.14 I; nqe
1
For Plot Pomrcl ! TotA Powol nda Il a
I.... ,.r load lgl. dropped ,It iild meff, t. c
,ttem Pt raps mill int.tu1" i. g1,111,
F
Hwght of S oii o..... Silos
Inmalo 58
BNSF 11
Sylvostoi 65
Ft. Collins Mam 104
I loi sc tooth 23 bot GFS hulhor In clrva Cio n.
n
Y�IcliclI 11.OVlI I1P' VVIOi
>r
What Detmnnncs Hoi9h1[
Co va rigc Obtectrvo (nboul to 1.5 milo ri<li us
in ibis ""o)
Tcirnin
Folla90 (1-ntlonwo od+l)
Y.� terry
,.C.n:tl id:rtr Onvo In Th,ot, .
C,11d"iyt,l Oyppen Ficld
� C
C..nmmite Powoi Foie.
,:WZ�
4 Ste. yfY+f
Z
Candid alc Stmayc Facility
yy CandidaW. School
S�
5
No Text
L tiil, Sit, Sylvcatoi ® I .sting Sits Il.vy IL C 1-25
L.,,hng Site. RNSF
[.xi„u , sit,, . Ing.nld
C
't ..... Seto_ horse ....... tooth
Shelton Lonrlian
F-7-
s Uses of Cell plioll,"
I k , ... ...... . ..
2 Volce Calk
Vo.r Mall Notihc of .....
4 11,( Me. ...........
5 P" to"',
G M'h
7 ... ,, Coin Putm CO ....
S1,11t, L 1), ot .... I
M , N, ad, Cll S,t(
D . .......... I Call,
F,Iter D,it.i Rxi
Avoid o S?(jiiificait G,if) in Cov, i ic,
All., V ..... ... 1 Wheless t. Moct ds LI)l I
obligations
M., Coll, go Through
1,
F�-]